This Might Go-Down as 'Day We Lost the Country' if SCOTUS Allows Dubious Obama Recess Appointments

Reaganite Republican ^ | 14 January 2014 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

Well, today's the day we have to worry if the wobbly US Supreme Court will uphold what should seem obviously sensible rulings from three lower courts: that the Obama Administration had no business whatsoever claiming short-term congressional breaks to be 'in recess' and then exploiting them to ram-through dubious 'recess appointments'.

When questioned, the Obama WH's only response has been 'sue me', which soon became a reality. Since then, a U.S. appeals court in DC -and two others- said that indeed President Obama had violated the Constitution when he used the recess-appointment power to fill seats on the National Labor Relations Board two years ago, back in January 2012. 

The Senate was not meeting then, but it was holding brief "pro-forma sessions"- these sessions are specifically intended to prevent such recess appointments. Alas, the Obama administration claimed that the Senate is 'generally not available' to conduct business during such sessions, and went ahead and did as they pleased anyway, appointing three positions at the NLRB while making a complete end-run around Congress.

The case has now worked it's way up to the SCOTUS, but nothing is an obvious slam-dunk in the bizarre Obama era. Sadly, the last time we expected the highest-court-in-the-land to save us from this lawless regime, constitutionalists were left scratching our heads while Justice Roberts moved Heaven and Earth to basically re-write both Obamacare and the Commerce Clause... all to stick us with the clearly unconstitutional ACA individual mandate.

Everybody can see that Obama was not acting in good faith nor the spirit of the law, except libs and MSM hacks in bed with them. But 'everybody' could see the government has no business forcing citizens to buy a good or service, either... yet here we are, with Obamacare being slowly implemented, relentlessly.

A lot rides on this ruling today- call it an indicator of whether Barack Obama is ever going to be called-upon to obey the laws of this country... or not. What's to stop this power-drunk, one man wrecking ball when the SCOTUS won't defend the Constitution? As a lame-duck, he surely won't care what you think -if he ever did- after this November's elections, and once Obama's been told he doesn't have to follow any rules, either- then it's time to really be scared.

What's John Roberts going to do when Dear Leader finally succeeds in crashing the dollar, puts DHS troops in the streets, and cancels the 2016 elections? Same thing the MSM would do... nothing. Let's just hope for the best today- some think the White House is unlikely to win this case, and it's long past time somebody told Barack Obama 'NO!', isn't it, Justice Roberts? On top of that, you owe us one...

The Hill   LA Times   Mark Levin   BadBlue   Seattle Times   NowTheEndBegins

[Reaganite Republican]

***ping***

[Domandred]

If SCOTUS allows it next time Obama (or the next person) will just appoint at the end of the business day and say Senate was at recess.

[arthurus]

The USSC should have declined the case, allowing the rulings to stand.

[Reaganite Republican]

EXACTLY- the door would be wide open

[Reaganite Republican]

It’s already been upheld three times...

[petitfour]

It doesn’t matter any more. Harry Reid is a rubber stamp now. The Senate changed the rules. No more nominees stuck in committee. Or did I miss something?

[brooklyn dave]

I am still wondering what Obama has on Roberts that it appears he was forced to vote yes on Obama Care?

[PowderMonkey]

We all know how SCOTUS will decide. In November of 2008, the people surrendered their Liberty in exchange for “free stuff.” All that has occurred since is merely street theater, and slight of hand.

[cuban leaf]

Each incremental change is “The day we lost the country”. The only time it isn’t is if it gets reversed. e.g. Roberts’ decision is the day we lost the country. But if ZeroCare is somehow repealed, then we got it back.

[cuban leaf]

I am still wondering what Obama has on Roberts that it appears he was forced to vote yes on Obama Care?

---

Me too, though there was some discussion here about the legality of his adopting his kids.

[Duckdog]

Or just wait till lunch.

[YankeeReb]

I am still wondering what Obama has on Roberts that it appears he was forced to vote yes on Obama Care?

I wonder the same thing.
I think the day he ruled in favor of 0bamacare was the day we lost the country. The rest is just more of the long decline.

[brooklyn dave]

$hit they (DEMS) made such a big deal over some judges having illegal alien house keepers —and they didn’t make a fuss over the possibility that Roberts illegally adopted his kids? You can always fire the hired help and pay back taxes but you can’t send the kids back to wherever.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Or did I miss something?

In the event that the GOP retakes the Senate (which would render Harry Reid's nuclear option gymnastics moot) this ruling could determine whether or not Barry continues to end-run them with bad recess appointments.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I think the day he ruled in favor of 0bamacare was the day we lost the country

My initial gut reaction was "would Harriet Miers REALLY have been any worse?"

[EQAndyBuzz]

Why does everyone wonder what Obama has on Roberts. Will make it easy for all of you.

Obama: support me or your entire family will perish in some tragic accident.

Roberts: whatever you need bro.

[Graewoulf]

THE SUMMER OF 2014:
______________________
______________________

Yesterday was the last watershed day for America, because it was the last chance for the US Supreme Court to exercise a Constitutional Check and Balance on the current rogue, tyrannical and oppressive Federal Administration.

Chief Justice John “Traitor” Roberts will probably again refuse to abide with the clear Constitutional Law, and again rewrite the US Constitution to his own liking, in similar manner to what Roberts did with the Constitutionality of the Obamacare Case when he un-Constutionally converted a legal fine into an illegal tax.

Yesterday the US Supreme Court took up the issue of whether or not an Administration may legally act without Congressional Approval on matters relating to personnel appointments.

The topic of bypassing the House on approving the spending of taxpayer’s dollars by the Administration was not considered yesterday, except tangentially, as the appointed personnel will be paid with taxpayer dollars, which would be a bypassing of the Constitutional Control of the Purse by the US House of Representatives.

We taxpayers view this as a clear cut case where we have “Taxation Without Representation” because our Representatives have not been part of the decision-making process.

Examples of a few Imperial matters of record include the following:
* Senator Reid’s Senate Democrats recent voting to turn the US Congress into the US Parliament,
* Boehner’s refusal to appoint House Special Prosecutors for each of the Five Obama Administration Scandals,
* Obama’s four years of Imperial actions, and
* the recent history, ( Traitor Roberts’ Obamacare decision), of the US Supreme Court’s proven reluctance to provide their Constitutional duty of a Check and Balance on the other two Branches of the US Federal Government.

With the usual US Supreme Court private straw vote yesterday that always follows the 30 minute Official Hearing before the Court, America’s future fate was sealed, and will be later proclaimed between now and the Summer of 2014.

Either way that the NINE SUPREMES rules on this case, “The Summer of 2014” will prove to be the Summer that decided whether or not our Founding Fathers fought King George the Third of England in vain - - - .

____________________
____________________

THE SUMMER OF 2014.

[oldbrowser]

When questioned, the Obama WH's only response has been 'sue me',

I've heard a senate democrat give the following response to questions regarding the wisdom of some of the laws they have passed. "If it's unconstitutional the supreme court will reverse it."

[Howie66]

I am patiently waiting for us to have our “19 April, 1775” moment.